[2025:RJ-JD:2444] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 15646/2024 Vijay Kumar S/o Ramniwas Bansal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 21, New W.no. 33,bhadra, Dist Hanumangarh,(Raj.) (Lodged In Sub Jail , Bhadra) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baltej Singh Sandhu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 14/01/2025 1. The present third bail application has been filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR No.431/2023, registered at Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh for the offences under sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. 2. Arguing the bail application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is a serious discrepancy in number of medicine seized, if the seizure memo is compared with the inventory, which is prepared in the presence of Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the seizure memo 80 strips of SANDOL-P were recovered (76 strips with Batch No.230407 and 04 strips with Batch No.230115) while preparing the inventory only 74 strips of batch No.230407 were mentioned. [2025:RJ-JD:2444] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15646/2024] 4. Learned counsel pointed out that in the inventory verification report, there was no accounting or reference of the strips which were opened and weighed by the Seizure Officer and argued that such discrepancies in the number of tablets recovered hits at the very root of fair investigation and recovery made by the Seizure Officer is false and doubtful. 5. It was also argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the Seizure Officer was not SHO of the Police Station, Bhadra and therefore, he was not authorized to intercept and seize the contraband substances. In this regard Court’s attention was invited towards the statement of Seizure Officer (PW-1) to show that he had admitted the fact that on the date of recovery, he was not SHO of Police Station, Bhadra. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application while submitting that the discrepancy in number of strips of tablets pointed out by the applicant are inconsequential and applicant cannot take advantage of the same. 7. In relation to competence of the Seizure Officer, learned public prosecutor submitted that the testimony of PW-1 clearly reveals that on the date of seizure, regular SHO – Satpal Bishnoi, was on leave and he (Prahlad Chandra Sharma) was having charge of Police Station, Bhadra. He argued that applicant’s contention that on the date of interception/recovery said Prahlad Chandra Sharma - Seizure Officer was not competent/authorized to effect seizure, is untenable. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JD:2444] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15646/2024] 9. So far as applicant’s endeavor to point out the discrepancy in number of strips is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that these contentions are to be taken into account during the trial. That apart, minor difference that 80 strips in the seizure memo and 74 strips in the inventory were shown, hardly makes any difference as long as the fact that 80 strips of tablets having contraband substance were recovered from the applicant’s conscious possession is not disputed. 10. The fact that while preparing inventory no specific mention of the strips which were opened by the Seizure Officer for the purpose of weighment has been made, is also of hardly any relevance at this stage - it does not give any advantage to the applicant, so as to make him entitled to be enlarged on bail. 11. Adverting to the argument that was advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that since Prahlad Chandra Sharma – Seizure Officer was not the Station House Officer of Police Station, Bhadra, he was not competent to effect seizure, this Court is of the view that such contention has hardly any substance. Said Prahlad Chandra Sharma - Seizure Officer (PW-1) in his testimony has clearly stated that on the date of seizure, regular SHO – Satpal Bishnoi was on leave and he was having charge of the Police Station, Bhadra. Such being the position, according to this Court, Prahlad Chandra Sharma was an SHO in eye of the law. 12. The argument that the investigating Officer has not brought anything on record to prove that said Prahlad Chandra Sharma was SHO on the date of seizure does not hold any water. Because, there is always a presumption that the person, who has effected [2025:RJ-JD:2444] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15646/2024] seizure was having power and authority to do the same more particularly when he was having charge of Police Station, Bhadra. 13. If the accused wants to rebut this presumption, the onus to prove the same lies upon him. 14. It is for the defence to establish the fact that seizure officer (Prahlad Chandra Sharma) was not having charge of Police Station, Bhadra, or he was not SHO, by leading cogent evidence in this regard. 15. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to accept the bail application filed by the applicant. 16. The bail application is therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MEHTA),J 108-Arun/-